It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why must you insist reality is illusion?

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pentothal
What is reality? It depends what you are observing it with.
If you observe it then you change it.
You become part of the process.
Therefore you are observing part of yourself.


I like this answer!


Holistic, rather than selectively dismissive.


Originally posted by Epsillion70
Believe--Perceive--Experience.


Very good. And in reverse. Our experience is limited by what we can perceive. Our perception is limited by what we can believe.


[edit on 2008/9/14 by SteveR]




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


F.y.i, again, the Double Slit experiment has nothing to do with the movie "What the bleep do we know?", nor with the scientists involved with that movie.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
It always seems to upset people to refer to their reality as an illusion.

I prefer to refer to reality as "software", which is ultimately hackable if you understand the code.

You can live a perfectly wonderful and happy life within the software without being aware of its existence. Similar to how people can use their computers (to post information in an HTML editor)without any code writing ability, however there is a reality code(consensus reality) being written(by human consciousness) and it can be hacked

Humans are limited to their ability to comprehend reality with their 5 senses and science is limited by its tools, there is a tendency to mistake the measuring tool for the reality that it is measuring(x-rays have always existed, but we have only been able to measure their existence for the last hundred years or so)

"Reality is an illusion , albeit a persistent one" - Albert Einstein



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


FYI, it is mentioned in the movie. www.whatthebleep.com...


The original WTBDWK was made for a theatrical experience of under two hours. With these new expanded versions, the filmmakers were finally able to include all the topics as originally intended. The completed picture presents all the elements that are intrinsic to the worldview put forth in BLEEP. Topics such as Quantum Entanglement, the Double Slit Experiment, Healing and the Cell, the split and re-unification of spirit and science - all are addressed in the detail required to tell the story. Hopefully they stimulate the viewer to seek further explorations. It may be the definitive BLEEP, but it is not the last word – it’s the final beginning.


I have watched it more than once, so please don't tell me what is and is not in there.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Ok, I think this needs to be taken at a different angle.

What do you define as real? What you can taste, feel, smell, hear?

All of those are just impulses sent out by the brain to collect information and interpret when it comes back. How about a Hallucination? Is that real?

Why isnt that considered real when the person experiencing it can feel, taste, smell and hear whats happening in the Hallucination?

What if you were really just a piece of AI in a advanced game? Able to think and make decisions. What if this was the Matrix? Is it still real?

But If we insist on taking this in the same angle as science fact and a persons opinion, then here is how it works.

'solids' are made of 99.99% empty space. I say solid to show that the energy that you see if manifesting in a concentrated bundle.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
A dream or hallucination would not be considered reality at all... Reality is something that can be measured or observed by more than 1 person. It is sort of like a "thought" or "idea" which exists only inside your head, is not reality.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

At the same time, all beings and things also belong to the ultimate dimension, the dimension of reality that is not subject to notions of space and time, birth and death, coming and going. A wave is a wave but at the same time it is water. The wave does not have to die in order to become water; it is already water right in the present moment. We don't speak of water in terms of being or nonbeing, coming and going - water is always water. To talk about a wave, we need these notions: the wave arises and passes away; it comes from somewhere or has gone somewhere; the wave has a beginning and an end; it is high or low, more of less beautiful than other waves; the wave is subject to birth and death. None of these distinctions can be applied to the wave in its ultimate dimension as water. In fact, you cannot separate the wave from its ultimate dimension.

Nhat Hanh, Thich. (2003). Opening the Heart of the Cosmos: Insights on the Lotus Sutra



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
What if you were really just a piece of AI in a advanced game? Able to think and make decisions. What if this was the Matrix?


Why do you ask me to provide your answers for you? Is it because you have none? Your what-if is the whole of your theory.

Provide substantial thoughts rather than pure imagination; based on entertainment products no less.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
The illusion is actually a reflection, but without one of the two showing proof.




All these factors and more will push his accuracy to reality.


True, But do we agree there is limitations to our preset day conscious abilities in these bodies? I guess my feelings are there is a reason for our limited expansion of mind, whilst we're incarnated in this special place (Earth).

If we knew all there is to know, what would that change about our physical limitations? There are two directions, I think.

1). We study the illusions long enough that they become working pieces of our realities, and eventually we will be able to actualize our spirit's tool (ie telepathy, telekinesis) in the form, while understanding how our actions here reverberate about the universe.

2). We have a cap on what these bodies can do, and while we may be able to examine the esoteric, we will always be confined by our physical limitations. Forcing the unattainable to seem illusionary.


What if it was simply defined as reality is what we pay attention to long enough to materialize it. Pay attention long enough, and you can understand more about your limitations here.
However, some things we can pay attention for years and never have a better understanding a full concept (ie who is GOD?).

What are your thoughts on the subject?

AAC











[edit on 14-9-2008 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I think Conan the Cimmerian said it best......

From Queen of the Black Coast

"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content..."



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
That was deep.


The verbalized result of your bounce is as follows.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
But do we agree there is limitations to our preset day conscious abilities in these bodies?


For sure.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I guess my feelings are there is a reason for our limited expansion of mind, whilst we're incarnated in this special place (Earth).


It depends if you wish to apply your own reasoning to this actuality, or if you wish to look at it as is. A, Are we limited to counter an otherwise unwanted consequence? B, Or are we limited because we simply are. We are what we have made ourselves thus far.

I do not know the answer but I am open to both possibilities. I generally prefer answers that highlight the governance of our potential (B).


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
If we knew all there is to know, what would that change about our physical limitations?


We agree reality is dynamic, ever-changing with the countless winds of creation. To know everything you would need to be constantly updated of the minutest details. This already incurs practical limitations. I feel to be truly omniscient (if at all possible) you would have to surrender Life.

You could argue that infinite details are irrelevant and to 'know everything' you would have to embrace a formulaic generalized belief system that covered everything, more or less. But then you would never know anything intimately, leaving you with a compromised outlook.

We are in the perfect position right now to sample the best of both worlds.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
eventually we will be able to actualize our spirit's tool (ie telepathy, telekinesis) in the form


If we are already capable of these techniques, yet they lay dormant due to lack of practice and attention, are we any less capable? Are we really limited by not having the full repertoire available, or are we focus-based beings that develop individually defined unique events. Does this narrow configuration imply limit? I wouldn't choose to look at it that way. Only if, everything is inherently limited in some way.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
We have a cap on what these bodies can do, and while we may be able to examine the esoteric, we will always be confined by our physical limitations. Forcing the unattainable to seem illusionary.


It depends on how you have created yourself and what avenues are legitimate in your view. You used the words, confined and limited to describe our current opportunities. This means you are locking out something in favor of something else, the value of which is based on your conjecture. I suggest to develop potential laterally instead of vertically. If you focus on your awareness of what you can achieve with the tools you already have, you may open hidden infinities.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
What if it was simply defined as reality is what we pay attention to long enough to materialize it.


Attention is critical to defining reality yes.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Pay attention long enough, and you can understand more about your limitations here.


Or, pay attention long enough, and you can understand more about your potentials here.



Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
However, some things we can pay attention for years and never have a better understanding a full concept (ie who is GOD?).


Only if you have not defined a clear target. "God" is reachable if you can lock onto him.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   


I think optimistically too.


I was considering the ramifications if there was that "restriction" aspect to humanity. If not, and all is open for expansion, then I would love the idea of promoting that humanity is it's only restriction. The walls we have all created erroneously are the only things standing in our way.

I could sway both ways actually, with neither having definitive assurances.

However, I would prefer it your way.


AAC



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by pai mei
 



Pai Mei that was wonderful
thanks for sharing

Edit to say all posts on the thread have been wonderful and thought-provoking


[edit on 15-9-2008 by destiny-fate]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I was considering the ramifications if there was that "restriction" aspect to humanity.


I know. There was a time when I was a proponent of this. It's important to see restrictional aspects as subjective perceptions. Otherwise you will artificially elevate one potential over another.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
The walls we have all created erroneously are the only things standing in our way.


Absolutely. Apply this in all directions so that you will be able to explore more from your current status rather than develop a view that it is insufficient.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I could sway both ways actually, with neither having definitive assurances.


We have our own senses to formulate them. These assurances you pick up through living your philosophy.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
What a crazy topic!
What comes to my mind first is that what is to one person "real" is to them real because they believe it to be so. Regardless of how many people agree about what is "real", I offer the notion that today's science or axiom may tomorrow be proven false.

In regards to electric energy and how a human mind works and dreams, the reality of thought is fascinating. Time travel? Premonition? Some people are clairvoyant, for instance.

Psychedelics from my experience do raise one's awareness and sensory levels but actually deter from focusing thoughts, especially under the influence. On the other hand a "trip" may help to release social tension and allow a kind of new outlook forever.

99% empty space is a definition of "space", which must be a reality. The real "empty" is made up of something. I speculate that the empty, defined and measured, will one day be of great importance. All of what we are and know is in the reality of empty. Gravity, electricity, temperature, light, sound, for instance all use "empty" as their roadway. Clairvoyants must use it to?
One man's empty is another man's full
Blah.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 





So I'm lazy because I came to another conclusion? Because I disagree with you, I have to do more research?


*sigh* You didn't specifically come to a conclusion. You just agreed with with what sounded right to you.




Yes having said that, why judge my interpretation in the first place.?


Because I understand the gist of it, but I would rather have a better plan of attack if you will in explaining it to you. Why, for the fourth/fifth time in explaining this to you do you still have an issue over it? Beggars can't be choosers, so shut it, sit there and wait and damn well enjoy waiting. I don't have the time to cater to beggars.




I just think that the knowledge you claim to have that enables you to judge my interpretation as false, would be same knowledge that would enable you to explain why it is wrong.


Duh? But, it being more complicated than letting you know your wrong, again it will take some time. One more day man, one more day. Quit whining and begging if your going to be lazy and unwilling to verify, takes two seconds to run a quick search yourself. Some of the info is even provided in your own links ffs.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





I have watched it more than once, so please don't tell me what is and is not in there.


It may have been mentioned in the movie, but it is an experiment that stands on its own, done many years before that movie came out,

So for you to judge the expreriment as part of the movie is simply just wrong.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Ok, I'll eagerly await your answer. Maybe next time, you shouldn't open your mouth in the first place until you are able to explain your claims of someone being wrong.

And please, post your explanation here in this thread, I promise you, it won't go unnoticed.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


That's almost like me saying you shouldn't open your mouth until you fully understand and grasp what your talking about.


Why are you getting so damn hung up and angry about it anyways? Tomorrow, I will post the answer. Some of the information as I said even came from your own links to me, go figure!

Well, anywho... Off to work now. Have a nice day my lazy begging friend.


[edit on 15-9-2008 by sirnex]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





That's almost like me saying you shouldn't open your mouth until you fully understand and grasp what your talking about.


Jeah only the difference is, my claims are backed up by a real experiment wich was explained very well in the link I provided.

Sofar, you have just said my interpretation is wrong, but you have not explained why.

I can explain how I came to my interpretation. If I couldn't, I wouldn't have posted it.

See the difference?



new topics




 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join